These are notes from the Army Corps of Engineers hearing on the management of the Missouri River in Council Bluffs on Tuesday. Here’s some background for those of you who have been involved in other issues. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has suggested that the Corps of Engineers provide a spring rise and summer decline in river levels on the Missouri in order to benefit the ecosystem which has degraded to the point that three species are listed on the threatened and endangered lists - the Piping Plover, the Least Tern, and a large, slow growing fish, the Pallid Sturgeon. The only Pallid Sturgeon that are being found in the river are older, which indicates that they have stopped spawning. The spring rise would flood adjacent lands, and also provide a temperature change in the water which they believe will trigger spawning and provide the habitat the fish will need in order to grow to maturity. The hearing began with a video that gave basic information about the Missouri, it’s past management and the impacts of the various options being considered. The Missouri River is the second longest river in the nation. In the 1850s it was used for drinking water. Because the population was small flooding was not a problem. As the population grew flooding became a problem and after the dustbowl and the depression that accompanied it, the first dam was installed in 1933. An economic revival of the area followed and five more dams were installed in 1944. The last dam became operational in 1967. The management plans were designed for flood control and to mitigate drought. In April the water was released and in March reservoirs were empty and ready for the spring flows. The flows were adjusted for hydropower, water supply, habitat, and recreation. In 1994 a new alternative for managing the river was proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the discussion of change began. This hearing was the last in the series. The option we were authorized to support was GP 2021, the one that reflects the greatest change of all the options that were suggested by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This option would provide the best habitat for the Piping Plover and Least Tern. Besides providing better habitat for the ecosystem, this option would also provide the greatest area for the potential spawning of the sturgeon, although it was stated that there was no data to support the benefit to the pallid sturgeon. The Corps estimates that GP2010 would provide increased benefits for hydropower generation. It would also impact water supply, navigation, groundwater levels, interior drainage, flood control , allow for the potential erosion of historic sites, and change the kinds of recreational opportunities available on the river. It was stated that the Corps of Engineers is a project proponent. That sounds on paper like they are a proponent of change, but that was not my impression having talked to corps personnel or as I sat there listening. They want to know if their information is inaccurate or incomplete. Comments can continue to be made until February 28th at [log in to unmask] It was apparent in the comments expressed by the opposition, that it will be very difficult for any change to be implemented. Zoning has not taken the value of floodplain to a community into account, and in the absence of capable leadership in this area, communities have continued to expand in ways that jeopardize their very survival when there are both low and high flows on the river. The Corps called on legislators and officials first. The mayors of Council Bluffs and Omaha were both concerned about water supply. Earlier I had talked to a water supply man, who told me the water can move across the channel away from their intake pipes during low flows. The mayors were also concerned about basement flooding, damage to their economic development projects along the river and to riverboats. Both cities have new power plants that need river water to cool them (possibly coal burning plants?). Marinas could dry up and there are concerns as well about the aesthetic appearance of the river in the months of lower flow. Two other mayors sent representatives opposing change as did Hubert Houser of Carson, Iowa of the Iowa Senate and representatives of Boards of Supervisors of Freemont, Harrison, Mills, and Pottawatamie Counties in Iowa. Patty Judge of the Iowa Department spoke, as an elected official opposing change. The official Iowa comments were to be filed later. Drainage Districts also opposed change in the flow. These included Burt County Drainage District in Nebraska and the Iowa Drainage Ditch Association. The representative of the Iowa Corn Growers Association questioned whether the species were endangered and suggested that they stock the Pallid Sturgeon in the river like they do the Walleye. He said the National Academy of Sciences had called for a moratorium on changes in the flow until it was better understood. Changes were also opposed by the Nebraska Chapter of the Associated Contractors of America, the River-Craft Union, the gambling giant Harrah’s, and the Coalition to Protect the Mo River, a group of agricultural, navigational, industrial and business interests. Their speaker said the flow change will flood bird habitat during mating season. In opposing changes the Nebraska Farm Bureau representative quoted an email he had received that morning from a farmer who was crying as he typed out his email. It showed a picture of a whole family living in constant dread of flooding. Lynn Munch, Vice President of an association representing barge operators, said that federal law has been broken. The recommendations are fuzzy and she questioned whether scientific facts or political beliefs were being proposed. She said the Pallid Sturgeon can’t breed because they can’t find each other. These changes would increase the cost of barge transportation and eliminate barge traffic on the Missouri River. She said the change in flows would have negative impacts on the Gulf of Mexico. Negative impacts on gulf with change in flows The most entertaining speaker of the evening was Bill Beacom, a barge captain. He said the pallid sturgeon goes up into the chutes to spawn and that the piping plover never successfully used the Missouri River until the dams were installed. He said the spring rise will be a disaster and questioned whether the natural hydrograh would be natural, that the spring flows would carry no carbon, no peat, no sediment. He compared this spring flow to a bowl of water being called beef stew. The Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association also opposed changes. Their representative told of a farmer who has lost an entire section of land on his farm since 1980. He said, “We feel that if anyone puts that spring flow into effect they should go to jail.” He talked about his concern that changes in flow would take down trees in stretch that was pretty natural and leave nothing there but corn and soybeans. He doesn’t think that is responsible management and that provision should be made to protect the landowners along the rivers. Paul Roady, Vice President of the Midwest Area River Coalition said the impact analysis is incomplete. He asked for depletion runs and his request was denied. He said he believes there are even greater impacts for stakeholders than has been documented. David Burkholder of Consolidated Blenders Incorporated said his company wants to ship in June July and August, so the split season would not work for them. He thinks there are other ways to provide habitat on the Missouri River. Another speaker said the changes would reduce power production when it is most valuable, that habitat would be lost along the shores of reservoirs and only 100 acres of tern and plover habitat would be created along the river. (Note: predation is a problem, which is why it is valuable to have habitat in the middle of a river where predators cannot disturb the birds when breeding.) The manager of a marina talked about the debt his marina has incurred and said that annual maintenance alone would be prohibitive for him because of the sediment that would be created. Several farmers were there to express their concerns. One said the high water would limit the growth of roots in the spring, and when water levels dropped in the summer the crops would dry out.. Concern was expressed about the possibility of rainfall coinciding with the release. Another stated that this would raise water levels just when farmers are having drainage problems. The use of chutes and backwaters could provide the needed habitat. A representative of a family farm group said GP 2021 would destroy every farmer from Yankton to South Dakota. He said the endangered species probably are not endangered and that even one flood will make it hard for farmers to continue. If the land is flooded in the spring it will continue to be wet. This change would be experimenting with his income and taking away his paycheck. One farmer mentioned the Sierra Club and said he is not threatening their livelihood but we are threatening his. Steve Oltmans of the Papio River Natural Resources District in Missouri was the first supporter of change to speak. He expressed support for MCP plans to improve habitat, urging them not to go further than 1528 because that would undermine power production, recreation, water for cooling and power production. (Note: This option is the one that would most endanger historical sites by allowing erosion.) A man speaking for a 150 mile area from The Platt to the Dixon County Line said that you have to have habitat before the changes would be beneficial to the targeted species. He said that environmental and conservation interests should join hands and convince congress to put money in the Missouri River Conservation Act. 25% of the habitat could be restored in a reasonable time frame, and this could be accomplished by voluntary purchases. After this has been done, the altered flows would be effectual and they would not have an impact on landowners. Policies should be changed to restore the land and landowners should be compensated. Compensation for landowners is not included in the current proposal. Ion Worthman, the Conservation Chair of the Omaha, Nebraska Audubon Society was the first to speak in support of the “Flexible Flow” GP 2021. This rather rude crowd gave her the worst treatment of the evening , groaning when she mentioned her affiliation and booing when she had finished. She expressed concern that it was important to start with the higher flows and commended a 10 year plan as a step in the right direction. She said the alternative will not give the corps the flexibility it needs to see that the project succeeds. If this is delayed we could have another 12-14 years of debate. Clyde Anderson of the Nebraska Chapter of the Sierra Club spoke in support of GP 2021, mentioning how those of us who use small boats welcome the lower flow. He said the river is used quite a bit in the winter months and flows are lower then than what has been proposed for the summer months. He also mentioned that less than ½ of 1% of goods are shipped on the river. Chad Smith of American Rivers spoke in favor of GP 2021. He talked about the town of Bismark where paddle boats, power boats, and canoeists all enjoy the river. He has seen more people on the river there than at Omaha or other locations on the river. They have a marina there that adapts to the variable heights on the river. Dave Sands of the Nebraska Audubon Society recommended the MRBA proposal The National Wildlife Federation spokesperson from Nebraska said that we cannot rely solely on habitat restoration or flow change, the two have to go hand in hand. He said it is important to think about the signal that is being sent. If they refuse to make changes they are saying they don’t have to change the way they are doing things. The biology becomes clearer every day. If you fail to send a clear message that change is coming you will be sending the wrong message. The river flows have to change and people need to start planning now. The changes should start as soon as possible. He is not asking them to return to 1804, just to do the bare minimum to keep these species from falling into extinction. Susan Heathcote of the Iowa Environmental Council expressed her hope that there would be ways to compensate those who would bear the cost of this change. She emphasized that the IEC does not want to cause harm to others, but that the entire ecosystem has been impacted. She is concerned that what we do be science based. Restoring the natural flow in the Missouri is key. She hopes they would continue to review the results of the changes as the plan is implemented. I gave comments on behalf of the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club in support of GP 2021. Peggy Murdock - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT to [log in to unmask]